AYSHEL

Mystery indeed was solved but you did not fully clarify the order of play in your responses. I hadn't realised that ROH database is complete in relation to that revival, having just reviewed it. But is good to have the order clarified

The ROH performance database on-line is very fragmentary and far from complete. Checking through my personal database of Covent Garden performances this is what happened back in 1993 Different Drummer was given seven performances in 1993. - 23/26/27 Oct. 10/16/24 Nov, 2 Dec The first 4 performances with Irek Mukhamedov/Adam Cooper/Viviana Durante. The last 3 with Jonathan Cope/Leanne Benjamin/Stuart Cassidy. There were four items on the programme given in this order Fanfare (Matthew Hart) If this is still a problem (William Tuckett) Different Drummer (Macmillan) Herman Schmerman (Forsythe) Hope that helps

The comment actually came a balletomane who happens to be a legal professional...I am only the messenger here! But the overall point remains that we must remain polite in discourse, and we must not forget that friends and family of many of these dancers we write about do read the forum and some do report back to the dancers themselves. That is my main concern and seems to be that of those I spoke to at the Macmillan triple bill. Robust it MAY be but respectful it MUST be. We must be mindful of this to maintain civility within the group, and respect to the artists themselves or we run the risk of losing readership or offence which would be a shame. There are many ways of writing less than positive criticism more lightly. EG - 'Could not compete with previous memories', 'was too soft grained to express such a dramatic character' etc. Just arbitrary ideas/examples but we must up our game on this to avoid some of the crude superlatives we sometimes see on this site. It would be nice that this would be everyone's 'happy place'. Disagree by all means - or 'debate' as they always say in politics - which circumvents the issues more elegantly.

I am glad that the moderators have reminded us all of the respect required in our posts. Regarding the recent harsh posts of criticism of Natalia Osipova prompted me, when seeing two of the recent Macmillan programmes at Covent Garden, to ask several ‘regulars’ how they felt about some of the comments. Most of these people are members of the forum and was shocked to hear that SIX people no longer post as they feel almost ‘bullied’ by the tenor of responses they received. Also, a number said they no longer look at the forum as the extreme negative criticisms compromised their enjoyment of the performances they have attended. All those I asked agreed that freedom of speech is paramount, and no views should be suppressed, but the language of recent posts left something to be desired, and in fact one member said that the posts regarding the Ballet Icons Gala (I don’t want to point any fingers here – unlike the 5th Fairy in the Sleeping Beauty Prologue!) could actually be libellous. The person involved in that posting has a role within a respected international ballet charity and should at least attempt to be impartial considering their professional obligations. It easy for us all to hide behind a Forum sobriquet, and those of us in professional roles must be especially mindful of that. I have worked in ballet for 41 years – curating, staging, writing, translating, and latterly editing a professional publication. This governs very much how I express my opinions on the forum. Positive criticism is always a joy to read, the extreme negative stuff not at all, and it only goes to damage those gentle souls mentioned above who have a real desire to be part of a community for the art form they love. If we don’t agree with any posting the best option is silence, not fighting to defend or re-enforce one’s own point of view. If you really dislike something please be moderate in any response you want to share, or better to keep any personal or over-direct criticisms to yourself. We shouldn’t have to call each other out for bad grace which creates an adversarial atmosphere. Let’s all turn over that leaf and move forward. Thanks to the moderators for bringing us into line!

In replying to the responses to my post from FionaM and Sim. I think they are both missing my point - it’s not the role of anyone to suppress an opinion, but the measure in which an opinion is voiced.The words used were very powerful. On this forum everyone is entitled to an opinion. Fiona M’s choice of words was extremely direct in her dislike and her comment on this forum was exclusively about Osipova’s fouettes which were well delivered and certainly tested the boundaries, but to write such descriptions as ‘ugliest I have ever seen’ ‘crash on’ and ‘no ballet technique’ are strong superlative epithets. It would totally impossible to deliver even a set of single fouettes without ‘technique’. It is this level of discourse which does neither the forum nor the writers any favours. As Fiona did not like these fouettes, which had their bumpy moments, pushing technique to the limits, they were exciting in the spirit of the piece, and she saved any catastrophe, which was sadly not the case for the dancer in the Swan Lake Odile pas de deux earlier in the evening. Fiona M has since I see edited this post and has changed the wording although I still have an issue with the use of ‘vulgar parody’ which still seems a little harsh. The audience obviously did not share that view. I accept totally that my response to her was equally strong, but this very direct style of reviewing does not enhance one’s knowledge. As for Sim’s response it was equally sharp. As Missfrankiecat points out that Fiona M (her neighbour at the Gala) does offer erudite posts overall and keeping the tone professional would endear to her more to others as she clearly has a deeply held conviction worth sharing.

As Galas go it was not a bad evening. Unfortunately it was slightly too long and several of the numbers could have easily been excised, which may have brought it to a reasonable time frame. The classical pieces were as one would expect, and some of the modern choreography was very interesting and well danced, but there were a few that really do not fit into such programmes. We will all think differently about which ones. Personally I did enjoy the ‘Two Pieces for HET’ wonderfully danced by Constantine Allen, but too long in my opinion and there were several cadential moments where the piece could have been brought to a close, but it rambled a little. The ‘Caravaggio’ with Bolle and Melissa Hamilton was quite a treat and very well performed. I was disappointed to read that his stage door manners leave something to be desired. He will miss the applause when it is no longer there. I don’t really think ‘Like Water for Chocolate’ worked as a gala piece, and flexed feet walking in lifts is all a bit passé. Francesca Hayward could have been very well used in something more reflective of her soft talents. I quite enjoyed the ‘Qualia’ which was well danced by Nagdhi and Clarke. The well-danced extract from ‘In the Middle, Somewhat elevated’ all looks rather retro nowadays, although we were thrilled by it when it first appeared years ago with the royal Ballet. To the classical pieces the Esmeralda pas de deux with the tambourine solo was very well executed by Antonio Casalinho and Margarita Fernandes, which along with the ‘Renaissance’ with Julian Mackay showed that the Munich ballet is a force to be reckoned with and has developed very well in recent years. I thought the ‘Corsaire’ was a rather routine performance as was the ‘Black Swan’. To refresh Fiona's memory, Evelina Godunova's fouettes were a set of tidily executed singles. Skylar Brandt’s fall from her fouettes, compelling her to take emergency alternative steps, was unfortunate but overall it was not a performance to grace the memory. I really must take issue with Fiona M and her persistent cabal against Natalia Osipova. She quotes ‘Osipova’s (fouettes) in DQ were the ugliest things I’ve seen. She started to full off balance early on requiring a double plie (which doesn’t sound bad when you write it) and then decided to crash on through them in any old fashion. I admire her will power. It was a gymnastic act. No finesse, no ballet technique.’ This is quite offensive writing. ‘ugliest things I have ever seen’, ‘Crash on’, ‘no ballet technique’. This is primitive writing of the worst sort - a real disservice to a major international star who guests all over the world in an exceptionally large and varied repertoire. She did offer some variance to previous fouettes, which made them interesting in what was a fouetté filled evening. I had not seen her do this combination before in any of her well documented performances of the pas de deux in divertissement or complete performance. In old style Russian Divertissement programmes ballerinas were compelled to perform different variants in classical codas to offer variety. In London this dates back to the Bolshoi in 1965 at the Royal Festival Hall, and many of the Moscow classical Ballet performances from the 1980s. Osipova dispatched her task well in the fouettes and these comments relating to her lack of ballet technique are franly disgraceful. The internet enables us all to be forthright, hiding behind our profiles, but there should be some common decency in the analysis we read and not such crude writing. The Don Quixote pas de deux was well danced, although I think the partnering needed more work but then Potskhishvili is very young and it should develop with time. He is an exciting talent to watch, although I think we were rather led to believe that something really exceptional verging on the legendary was about to happen and I didn’t feel it did. Some of tricks were exciting, but it lacked the inner fire which most recently we had seen with Ivan Vasiliev, never mind the earlier Vladimir Vasiliev, still fresh in the memories of us ‘oldies’! What exactly do these awards, presented at the end of Gala, represent? They seem to be the personal gift of Olga Balakleets, but do they really mean anything? but it did give her the chance to show off a truly fabulous dress!

I amazed at reading Fiona's truly damning comment on the state of Osipova's dancing. She remains a superb interpreter of demi-caractere elements, as exhibited in Act 1. And the classical work, the beauty and structural development of the Dryad's scene solo (a vision of Dulcinea in a true production), and her classical clarity in the pas de deux was outstanding. That she has the pizzazz to delivering the circus based elements is not really a reason to discount the excellent performance of the role itself . Good fouettes are an add on and not the crux of any interpretation. As Kevin O'Hare rightly assessed her work with the Royal Ballet, and a previous poster stated 'She has probably forgotten more about Don Q than others have learned'. It was a truly exemplary performance and I actually horrified to read such negativity about it. 2000+ in the audience seemed pretty happy too. As a history of dance professional I cannot agree with the technical assessment and faults which Fiona highlights. Having seen 47 Kitri's in 51 years of attendance and knowing the choreography by heart I cannot see what Fiona is highlighting. On one point Fiona is telling us that she should contrate on narrative and contemporary ballets yet 'worried' that it might be her last Don Q. I hope she continues to develop and she consistently does. As always with her in second performances she improves what might have gone slightly awry in the first and whilst both of her Don Q's this time were superb, the second one showed even more technical, and dramatic assuredness. The confidence that her partnership with Reece Clarke has given him is also a reason to rejoice as it continues to flourish and his performance and their beautiful paced double work was nothing short of the fullest possible magic. Lukas B Braendsrod had a less secure performance yesterday than the Saturday matinee - but let's remember a dance is like a souffle - it occasionally doesn't rise as one would like. I feel I ought to mention Annette Buvoli's Mercedes - almost as a non-conception of the role. Smiling as you rebuff, quite violently, the flirtations in Act 1 of Espada towards Kitri's friend, doesn't really cut it. She's a passionate character with flaring hispanic emotions and she didn't really engage that yesterday.

I must say that the matinee on Saturday was a very great performance indeed. Have seen so many ‘Don Quixote’s’ in my 51 years of opera house attendance and having seem some of greatest Russian Kitri’s such as Maximova, Bessmertnova, Komleva, the performance by Natalia Osipova on Saturday raised the role to superb heights within Carlos Acosta’s production. There was so much detail in Act 1 in the partnership between her and Reece Clarke it was simply amazing. She has danced in 3 productions in London alone and numerous times – mostly with Ivan Vasiliev. But yesterday the interaction between Kitri and Basil was taken to another level. The freedom which a demi-caractere role offers gives her all the leeway she needs to put an interpretation across the footlights away from the strictly classical canon. The charm of the relationship between them was overflowing and engulfing. I never thought I would find ‘Don Quixote’ a moving experience, full of humanity in such a way. When she danced with the Mikhailovsky and Bolshoi usually with Vasiliev her performances were technically stunning with her prodigious technique, and her innate stage charm came across wonderfully. They were very technically charged renditions – and I remember the performance with the Mikhailovsky where they earned a 15-minute standing ovation – I checked my performance diaries today to check I hadn’t misremembered that! I did not feel that she tired or was breathless during the performance – I was only 8 rows back in the stalls and she charged with energy throughout. The final solo in pas de deux was a joy as she had now opted for the variant using the fan (as per Vishneva and Makarova) which she despatched with absolute brilliance and clarity, and it was certainly not ‘half-delivered’. The fouettes have always been her strength (and I remember the Swan Lake where she opted for the Plisetskaya, late Bessmertnova pique/chaine tour which certainly was a surprise at the time) Yesterday, she offered a variety in the doubles with a variety of arm positions, which to me was also a first from her. The classical act (the usual Dulcinea as per Russian versions) was executed with an absolute crystalline purity of tyle – just as it had always been since her first performance in the Bolshoi with the Bolshoi. The suspension of time with the beautifully held positions was arresting and showed her classical credentials perfectly. One must mention Reece in his first performance. An absolute joy, with some beautiful long held lines, clarity of movement and positioning, and his responsive charm to his ballerina. They really are a superb partnership – and I think he must have learned from her experience. If you watch the World Ballet Day rehearsal on youtube for this performance, you can see how well they work with each other – and her genuine artistic affection for him. The interplay between for me even rivalled that of Maximova and (Vladimir) Vasiliev – and I don’t think I can say better than that. It was a truly great performance and the audience felt that. The stalls did rise to a standing ovation. Of the other performers, Lukas B Brændsrød was an excellent Espada burning with passion, but I wasn’t overly impressed by Annette Buvoli as Mercedes. She seemed rather loose and flaccid, and her personality was not very strong. Indeed when Espada was flirting with Kitri’s friends, and she warded them off, she did it without any change to her facial expression or dynamic, she just kept smiling. This should have been addressed during the rehearsal period. A Spanish Street Dancer would surely show more temperament. Hugh admiration for Gary Avis, who really made the role of Lorenzo into something central to the development of the story. He was so full of detail and offered a absolutely complete character study. Such a brilliant theatrical personality and dancers could learn so much from watching him! The two friends of Kitri (Leticia Dias and Mariko Sasqaki) were very well drawn and worked very well together. The Queen of the Dryads was very nicely danced by Sumina Sasaki with clarity and ease. A very tidy set of Italian fouettes. Calvin Richardson was a hilarious Gamache, very foppish indeed. I am not a fan of the musical arrangement by Martin Yates but it was also well conducted with Valery Ovsyanikov paying great attention to the dynamics of the dance on stage. All in all a fabulous afternoon!

Was at the 29 May evening performance with Natalia Osipova and Reece Clarke. I must say it was one of the most exciting Beauty performances I have seen in many a year. Osipova was inspired, she was on fire. The variety of plastique between the youthful Act 1 Aurora – with a beautifully secure Rose Adage, and the Vision Scene where her softness really took over combined with real lyricism was breathtaking. I have not seen an Aurora of this stature since the early 1990s with the then Kirov, now Maryinsky ballerinas. The partnership with Reece Clarke is quite marvelous. Despite the difference in height they work brilliantly together as a united team. His contribution was supremely elegant but exciting in his Act 3 solo. Osipova’s Aurora in Act 1 dramatically interacts with the four suitors with a certain level of coquetry of a young girl, in response to the Queen’s earlier decree to choose from the four. Her very girlish reactions were easily readable due to her consummate acting skills. The softness exhibited in the vision scene was a complete contrast, very much in the spirit of Russian ballet vision scenes. Her solo had a pure classical clarity which immediately drew the eye. What a great ballerina she is – and how lucky we are in London to have her grace our stage. As far as the rest of the cast is concerned one must mention the Princess Florine and Bluebird pas de deux with the adorable Yuhui Choe and Joonhyuk Jun as a genuinely exciting and aerially clean Bluebird. They drew a well-deserved ovation from the public. Even though Choe avoided a couple of the tricky elements of the choreography in her solo it was a true exercise on exemplary lyricism and a joy to watch.

I have a bit of issue with this comment by maryrosesatonapin. It implies that Sevenard was not really good enough. Like three of the four Kitri's this time she made her mark more in the classical sections of the role rather than the demi-caractere. Only Krysanova filled all aspects of the role as one would expect. However Sevenard's classical dancing was of such a good order it was an excellent performance overall and the audience responded well. Her demi-caractere was solid enough, just that her classical work was of such good quality it clearly revealed that her future probably lies in lyrical parts ( Aurora, Nikiya, Giselle) rather than demi-caractere soubrette style roles ( Coppelia,Fille etc). I strongly disagree that she was wooden. From the conversations I had in the intervals she certainly seems to have acquired a fair number of converts to her performances based on this Don Q. I know it is a bit of a bore to go on and on about fouettes but she and Krysanova packed an incredible punch to round off the athletic aspects of the evening. Sevenard full set of only doubles throughout crowned by a triple finish at great speed was amazing. All credit to Pavel Klinichev for speeding up the end of the male opening coda to raise the tension of expectation for the fouettes - which both of these dancers completely fulfilled. Stepanova in the evening danced beautifully in the classical elements with a wonderfully judged solo in the Dulcinea act - she really showed off her Maryinsky heritage there. The slip in Act one, which was not due to bad dancing, but just a loss of footing in a preparatory moment at least it did not rob her confidence for the rest of the evening. I would just like to point an interesting technical element in David Motta Soares' performance on Friday. He took all of his pirouette preparations from SECOND position and not FOURTH as is customary. Russian Dancers of earlier generations (Yuri Soloviev and Nureyev in his early years are good examples) used to do this. It centres the pirouette very well and is easier on the spine. Fascinating to see such a young - and very promising dancer perform this way. I enjoyed Ana Turazashvili's performances throughout this season but was rather underwhelmed by her Street Dancer. She is a fine artist and can deliver a solo extremely well, but roles like Street Dancer, Myrthe etc are almost of ballerina standard and I felt she wasn't really able to command the 10 minutes of the stage or so that roles at this level demand. I am not criticising her dancing - which is very fine indeed. The Russian ballet has 3 levels and these middle level roles require a more enduring sense of stage craft for them to truly make an impact. Whilst I enjoyed her dancing in itself you only look at Tikhomirova to understand the ability to 'hold' an audience for such a period of time. To defend Turazashvili, who I admire greatly, her performances in Swan Lake - as a bride and in the pas de trois, and her lovely final solo in Don Q mark her out as a superb performer at that level and a real joy to watch.

I have to take issue with Shades comment here. Niculina did not fall out of any fouettes at all. a combination series of singles and doubles - 1,1,2 which were expertly dispatched culminating in the second half of exceptionally fast singles - also perfectly dispatched. The white Act was exquisite and touching and in total contrast to the black act. She had beautiful long flowing lines, breathed with the music and was without doubt a great Odette. She and Kovaliova have great poetry in their arm movements. Niculina's Odile genuinely contrasted with a far sharper plastique as the role requires and full of dramatic touches. She delivered greatly. This was a performance on a really grand scale. She has worked well in recent years with Chenchikova and it is clearly paying dividends. In earlier performances both Smirnova and Stepanova had issues with their fouettes but certainly not Niculina. Bravo to her!

One cannot take away from the fact that this work still remains conjecture and with artistically fantasised conversations ascribing opinions to those who are not on record as having said them in relation to incidents and associations within their professional lives. It is not based on any kind of historical accuracy. It is not a book for any serious researcher of the subjects contained within it. There is no doubt from the footnotes that Peter Koppers has good working knowledge of the subject and I am not here to deride or defend him. As an Editor of an academic dance journal I agree with (the other) Geoff that it is incumbent on the editor to oversee and challenge where necessary. Proof reading is only a part of the skill required. It may have been prudent to have taken that title rather than editor. The argument relating to historical and current versions of the Sleeping Beauty is far greater than this forum can accommodate with broad brush comment. I am park that - permanently The concept of the book certainly comes close to the genre which was popular in Russia and Germany in the 1930s. Even later Vera Krasovskaya monographs on Pavlova and Nijinsky fit into that category offering a little extra colour to support actual historical fact. In this current case we have a series of fictitious interviews. The book does not do 'what is says on the can'. The cover states CONVERSATIONS. They are not direct conversations and the opinions 'they' express are not those of the persons themselves. The opinions have been created by the writer. Therefore they remain the work of fantasy. That is my issue with the book itself, which only begins to becomes clear in the third from last paragraph on Page 8 of the introduction. Both the cover and the title page lead one to expect something quite different. The simple use of inverted commas for the 'Conversations' would have highlighted that at the outset. Considering the footnotes and some of the accurate information contained within the descriptive text in relation to the ballets themselves it does seem like a lost opportunity. One understands the need today to offer cross-disciplinary approaches to old questions in an attempt to bring the subject to life. This is a very difficult area nowadays. Bringing a sometimes dry subject to life is the goal of any good writer. I fully grasp that idea but concerns remain about its overall application with this particular book when searching for historical truth.

Amy - as a dance academic and the administrator for the Marius Petipa website I also understand that you are an MA Graduate from Roehampton. You have the credentials to be a dance historian. This is not history in any sense. The cover of the book does not use inverted commas as to these conversations. They are not conversations, they are 'conversations', creating work of fiction which finds its base in a lot of good knowledge and well researched fact. The title is misleading. Please do not presume I am a ballet fan with a personal vendetta. I do not know and have never heard of Peter Koppers. I think you seem to be clutching at straws if you think that. Rather like the 'Conversations' that is just pure conjecture and unfair. My goal is for the historical truth. I was curator of the Anna Pavlova Memorial Museum for 7 years and am editor of 'Choreologica' the journal of the European Association of Dance Historians. 'So what if I didn't mention I was an editor' - As the editor of this tome it is professionally questionable to attempt to publicise the book as part of a glowing review of it. As you state from Petipa's diaries he was not a fan of Vaganova. However he did not as this book states 'live to see the day she was granted the ballerina title'. This part of the 'conversation' on Page 20 (just as one example) is not founded on any fact at all. It is just supposition and conjecture. I am really not sure how this book can assist in how 'we can learn how ballet can be restored to its former glory.' as stated in your review on Amazon. The writer with some truth could easily have drawn on Vladimir Teliakovsky's writings where Petipa would have easily vented his spleen on real events. But that isn't really covered at all. We have no written evidence from the mouths of the Legat brothers calling Diaghilev 'Fatso' or any other such insult either in print or publicly. This is a prurient book. The language on Page 96 is totally inappropriate in academic discourse. The suggestion on Page 130 of Pavlova 'french kissing' has nothing to do with any assessment of Pavlova, either as a dancer or as a private individual. As for the 1952 vs. 1999 of Sleeping Beauty. The 1952 prologue is COMPLETELY different to that of the 1999 reconstruction. There is plenty of video evidence of both available. The solos and pas de deux are also quite varied from Konstantin Sergeyev's reworkings. Vikharev went back to Nikolai Sergeyev's notation (sold to Harvard by Mona Inglesby) and produced something closer to the RB working version up to 1977. The remainder of the ballet is quite different and would take far too long to explain here. There is a history, particularly in Russia and Germany of the historical 'novella' which creates a true story based on fact in the form of a novel. This book falls somewhere within that genre but differs in the fact that opinions are ascribed to the posthumous 'interviewees' which are not supported by factual evidence. I stand behind everything I wrote on Amazon and here professionally. There were questions on this forum relating to this book and my concerns are all validated by what I have found within it. Like any review it is only my opinion but it is an informed one, not just one of a ' Mariinsky/Vaganova fan and this all seems to be some sort of hate action against Mr Koppers' or 'personal grudge' as you erroneously presume. But presumption seems to be rife throughout this very misguided and potentially misleading book.

To answer Sebastian, Assoluta Amelia and Geoff - in one go! Sebastian - I couldn't say I found anything NEW about the The Sleeping Beauty - There a good assessment for that in Tim Scholl's book - check it out on Amazon. It too has a few issues but is well informed and well written - rather academic in tone of course! Amelia - the first review on Amazon was by the editor herself. Assoluta - Thanks for your kind words Geoff - I didn't find any footnotes citing newly discovered historical material or primary historical sources. A few examples of the footnotes come from readily available sources such as Theatre St by Tamara Karsavina, Petipa's Memoirs, Natasha's Dance by Orlando Figues, Various books by Ivor Guest, Roland John Wiley's books, Joel Laubenthal's book on Alla Osipenko. The lesser known but available on the second hand book websites include Ekaterina Vazem's Memoirs - from a German Translation; Great Russian Dancers by Gennady Smakov; The 1971 Russian Petipa book from its German translation. As I said before the footnotes are quite explanatory about certain historical facts and places. Hope that helps and thanks to you all for reading